Alaska Darin Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 How about actually looking at the stats and conclusions and refuting what was found instead of saying "It's from Berkley, so it must be wrong!" This is a statistical analysis based on freely available public records. Numbers can be manipulated, true, but this is not an opinion piece, it's a mathematical interpretation of statistical data. Either their argument is statistically viable or it is not. If you believe it is not, then by all means, show why it is not. You're argument is the equilavent of many here who slammed Fahrenheit 9/11 for being full of lies without even seeing the movie. They may be correct, but they're automatic knee-jerk reaction ensures that they will never really know one way or another. I'd expect more from a self-proclaimed free-thinker such as yourself. 125446[/snapback] I skimmed it and the conclusions. Sorry if when I see the name "Michael Hout" in anything I immediately figure it's BS. You see, I lived in the Bay Area for 5 years and travel there semi-regularly on business. I'm well aware of the "thinking" that goes on around the Berkley Campus, as I used to attend games there when Jason Kidd was playing. I also understand that you can use statistics to prove pretty much whatever you want. As for your expectation, I could honestly care less. When the current conspiracy had it's first seed planted a couple of years ago, I placed the "over/under" on how long it would take the left to start this nonsense at a month (post election, of course). I also said take the under. Right here on this board. I didn't need to see "Farenheit 9/11" to know it would be filled with lies in a veiled attempt to push an agenda. "Bowling for Columbine" was enough for me. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 What would Frenkle say if I put something out there and used a Fox News link to back it up? Pot meet Kettle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 What would Frenkle say if I put something out there and used a Fox News link to back it up? Pot meet Kettle 125680[/snapback] He'd say your post needs more cowbell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 I can almost see the responses in my mind as I type this... Yes, it's from Berkely, but the findings are rather interesting if you actually look at the analysis. Front Page Summary (pdf) Take it for what it's worth, Bushies. I'm sure you've already dismissed it. 125403[/snapback] Your Phillips head screw driver is dull, you may want to try another tool. Look in your Kool-Aid bag. Kerry didn’t have the right tools to beat Bush. If you’ve ever done any work around your house, its all about the tools, and Kerry was, and is a Tool. Keep trying though, I need the entertainment Buckner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 "After carefully reviewing the findings, I say this is BS!"125430[/snapback] As opposed to your "After carefully reviewing the findings, I say this is God's own truth!" statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 I can almost see the responses in my mind as I type this... Yes, it's from Berkely, but the findings are rather interesting if you actually look at the analysis. Front Page Summary (pdf) Take it for what it's worth, Bushies. I'm sure you've already dismissed it. 125403[/snapback] Did you actually bother to read the study? I quote... Finally we translated percentage differences into vote totals intwo ways. The first was to assume that the vote margin was due to the appearance of “ghost votes” – votes registered for in a way that helped one candidate but did not reduce the total for the other. Mechanisms that would produce this outcome include having votes electronically registered in the machine prior to any voters using the machine or after the last voter used it – through software errors or hacking – and other flaws that interfere with counting after some limit is reached – reports indicate that some machines may have been programmed to stop counting or subtract votes after some limit is reached. The second count assumes a misattribution by the machine, i.e., a vote intended for candidate A that gets counted for candidate B. Since every vote miscast for candidate B costs candidate A one too, the difference is doubled, so we double our initial estimate to get our estimate of the miscount under this type of error. In short, the study includes a bias towards the assumption that votes were cast fraudulently...which means that the stated result (electronic voting resulted in a fraudulent 160,000 over-vote for Bush) is not a result of the data, but a result of the methodology. The "researchers" (and I use the term very loosely, as this is a horrible piece of "scientific" work) tested a hypothesis using a methodology that was intentionally based on the very hypothesis they were testing. In short...it's a load of absolute stevestojan that "proves" precisely what it was intended to prove specifically because it was designed to give that specific result and no other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts